The Vatican has been criticized for its so-called PR “gaffes” in recent years, but what lies at the heart of these errors, and how can they be corrected?

Massimo Franco, a veteran political correspondent for Italy’s daily newspaper Corriere della Sera, tries to get to the bottom of the problems in a new book called C’era Una Volta Un Vaticano (Once Upon a Time, There Was a Vatican). Although a former columnist for the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, Avvenire, he gives more of a political take on the Vatican than perhaps one of faith, but his views could be useful when it comes to possible — and what some say is much needed — reform of the Roman Curia. Franco spoke with Rome correspondent Edward Pentin March 15 in Rome.

Could you tell us more about the essence of your new book concerning the Vatican and its internal governance?

I think there has been a problem of a lack of strategy since the very beginning of this pontificate, because everyone in the conclave was overwhelmed by the figure of John Paul II. When Benedict XVI was elected, the fact that it was a very quick election, and that he felt himself to be old, meant there couldn’t be any strategy in building up a new system of governance in the Vatican. This [reform] has also proved to be quite difficult because the whole [Vatican] structure was shaped by the Cold War. And yet, during the first years of Benedict XVI and in the last years of John Paul II, the world profoundly changed, and all the framework of the Cold War was over. So there was a disconnect between the new world paradigm — a cultural and geopolitical paradigm — and the way the Vatican went on operating.

You mention in the book that a kind of “implosion” of the Vatican has been taking place. What do you mean by that?

It is an implosion of a Vatican, not of the Vatican. It’s the implosion of the kind of governance that used to exist. For example, when the Berlin Wall fell, you had Western secret services, and maybe Russian as well, prepared to deal with and cope with a certain kind of world. When this world wasn’t there any more, they went on operating in the same way as in the past. And yet the world had moved on.

The same is true of the Vatican. For instance, what happened with the [sexual-abuse] scandal: It wasn’t caused by Vatican problems; it’s the consequence of the fact that the situation has changed. In the past, during the Cold War, sex-abuse scandals were perceived as a possible sin, but not a crime. But if there is a “secularization of sin,” it becomes a crime. So public opinion in the West cannot tolerate the fact that the Church deals with these things as though they are just sins. They are crimes, and so Western public opinion wants them to react in that way.

In this way, you see how the Vatican lags behind, because its first reaction was very slow and very confused. There wasn’t a strategy because they couldn’t understand what was going on. It’s the same with the so-called gaffes of the Vatican.

The gaffes are not due to problems of external communications. They come from within, from the fact that the information chain inside the Vatican doesn’t work anymore because there is a sort of short-circuiting. Regarding [SSPX bishop] Williamson, the Pope had to admit he didn’t have enough information about him. That was paradoxical.

And, yet, the Vatican has operated like this for a long time — and until recently didn’t have so many perceived gaffes. What has changed?

The Vatican has to rethink the internal processes of information. The first one, the most superficial, is an incapacity to convey the right message. But there is a deeper problem, which is elaboration of the message. I mean that the problem is not just the way you communicate but what you communicate, and I think there is a cultural confusion on themes like pedophilia or power struggles inside the Curia. You never saw cardinals pointing at each other [publicly] like Cardinals Schönborn and Sodano did last year. So this is very confusing and astonishing for Catholic public opinion — and not only for them.

In the book you link the problems facing the Vatican with the global economic crisis, which began in the United States. Is there really a connection?

I don’t know if there’s a connection, but there is a very strange and striking coincidence, because if we think of Sept. 11 and the financial bubble of Wall Street of 2008, we can see a strange coincidence between that explosion and the explosion of the sex-abuse scandal. I think we can say, therefore, that, as we have seen that the U.S. unipolarism, in terms of military strategy and the economy, is over, so we could say that the moral unipolarism of the Vatican on ethics is also over. These two collapses correspond to one another. So, I think it’s a reflection of the decline of the West, the primacy of the West, both on a strategic and moral level.

But the Vatican isn’t just the West. It represents the central governance of the universal Church.

The Vatican is not the West, but it has represented the values of the West throughout the world. Of course, it’s also true that the United States is not the West either, and yet it has wanted to shape democracy all over the world. But, in the same way, and not by chance, the Pope created a pontifical council to re-evangelize the West; he took the name of Benedict because of a very deep perception that the crisis starts from the West and victory will be either won or lost in the West. So there is a coincidence, a strategic unipolarism. There’s a financial unipolarism which explodes and a moral unipolarism that explodes with the sex-abuse scandals.

So you see the international prestige of the Vatican in some ways declining?

The Vatican’s international agenda is very much a focus of discussion. It’s not as focused as it was just 10 to 15 years ago.

I had a very strange experience recently. I met about 30 ambassadors accredited to the Holy See from all over the world in order to discuss the Vatican in international politics. And during these discussions, some of them admitted that they didn’t know if, in 10 years’ time, there would still be an embassy to the Holy See for their countries because the Vatican doesn’t transmit an international agenda anymore.

One of them told me he felt as if he were the last ambassador in Venice in 1797 — the time when the city was occupied and destroyed by Napoleon. So there is a perception that the Vatican, on the international level, is losing influence.

But could this simply be part of what Benedict XVI has described as the Church becoming made up of “creative minorities”?

Benedict XVI deserves a lot of credit for this — he foresaw what was going to happen, and he created this expression “creative minority.” The problem is that, so far, first of all in the West, not many people see Catholicism as a minority — although, actually, it is. Secondly, “creative minority” is a good phrase, but, so far, it’s just a minority. So it’s a big question if it can become a creative minority.

Can this be applied to the Vatican?

The Vatican is very much looking inward. There is a strong Curia and a sort of disconnect between the Curia, Rome and the national conferences of bishops.

Some have said there’s too much patronage in the Curia, too many favors given to friends and associates, rather than based on merit. Is this a major part of the problem?

There are two problems at the moment. The first is that the Church is split, so it’s as though the conclave never finished. Under the leadership of Benedict XVI, factions have fought each other very strongly, compared to the past. Secondly, there is a problem of patronage. For instance, during the last consistory, it was very Eurocentric and Curiacentric: The new cardinals were friends of friends, and that’s because of a lack of strategy.

The Pope likes to choose friends, as they are people he already knows and trusts.

Yes, this Pope is an intellectual, a very respected man, but he sees that there isn’t much time to go forward. He believes he was forced to choose people he knew, on whom he could rely. And that is not exactly the best way to deal with as complex an organization as the Vatican, in this period of speed and precision.

So what is the way forward? Should the Curia become more international, for example?

The Curia is already internationalized. The problem is a change of mentality, not the national identity of the officials. I think the Church will be forced to change. Indeed, the risk could be not that a Vatican is over, but that the Vatican could face big difficulties.

Very good article with Mr. Franco, he has some interesting points there. If anyone is interested in reading about his background, there is a concise but informative post about him on the Huffington Post, it’s a short biography. I will post the link below if anyone wants to check it out. seehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/massimo franco short biography

Posted by Ralf on Saturday, Apr, 23, 2011 8:21 AM (EST):

“In the past, during the Cold War, sex-abuse scandals were perceived as a possible sin, but not a crime. But if there is a “secularization of sin,” it becomes a crime. So public opinion in the West cannot tolerate the fact that the Church deals with these things as though they are just sins. They are crimes, and so Western public opinion wants them to react in that way.”
I don’t understand why acts should be treated differently just because the State decreed them to be wrong. If they’re grave sins, they should be treated the same as any other grave sin.

Posted by vivian Noronha on Monday, Apr, 11, 2011 9:33 AM (EST):

What are they talking about.The Pope is a religious leader of the Catholics of the world and he is acting as such.The Vaican has been in the forefront in the U.N in all matters connected with issues that trouble the third world ,the world that knows hunger.The Vatican has forced a rethink on the Muslim world.The E.C countries are being forced to rethink their attitude to Christians and the Vatican has been in the forefront.The African nations and the Latin American countries have been helped to formulate policies to help their peoples. In all this the Vatican has helped bring Jesus back into the life of its people.It hardly matters if foreign ambassadors remain or leave the Vatican,the Church does not need them to formulate its jesus centred policies.
On one matter however the Church was slow,i.e sexual abuse of children by Priests.These rascals should be got rid of, however high.They should be in jails and not functioning, as many are are alleged to be still doing.There cannot be a seventy times seven in todays world on this subject?

Posted by Robert K. on Saturday, Apr, 9, 2011 3:37 PM (EST):

There is an excellent critique of this interview on the Benedetto XVI Forum. The author reveals the errors and biases in Massimo Franco’s responses as well as instances where the interviewer, Edward Pentin, might have challenged Franco and thus achieved a more thoughtful, truthful and useful article.

One may look at the very same issues that the author does and come to a wholly different outlook. This Pope seems to focus everything on God and evangelization instead of global politics. He seems to be saying to the Nuncios - you are priests first, this is a church first. He seems to be saying to the curia - we are about mission first. And so, the political communications suffer as do even thinking about the political ramifications of things. The Pope, I also believe, trusts that most of us will get it right and understand when information is made available. Which, I think we do. And when we do, there is a recognition by many of us about just how warped the world is that messages are deliberately manipulated and used against people. I also think that this Pope doesn’t care if there is dissent in the bureaucracy that perhaps differing opinions actually strengthens the whole - that freedom actually means freedom for even the members of the apparatus. This is a profound message in its own way.

On the other hand - I’m just interpreting like Franco - only God really knows. Even the historians won’t get it right.

Posted by D Paul on Friday, Apr, 8, 2011 12:48 PM (EST):

I do not see things as you view them. Within a certain moral framework, each bishop is independent within his own diocese. Here in America, each diocese is a separate legal corporation. It is the role of the Pope to judge and appoint relevant and holy men to positions of authority with the input from his apostolic delegate in each separate country. I believe that this Pope has done a magnificent job. It is not his job to create an international organization which will dovetail nicely with radical socialist world order pursuers. In addition if you read Oleg Kalugin, you will note that socialist spying has increased and not decreased. Finally, SSPX Williamson’s only crime was to support the Mass as it had been said for centuries and to forego support for the new socialist world order as set forth in print by Malachi Martin.

Posted by Anna on Friday, Apr, 8, 2011 11:31 AM (EST):

As Mr. Pentin indicates in the introduction of this article, Massimo Franco is only looking at the Vatican as a political entity…thereby rendering Franco’s observations as only nominally significant. I am always leery of expert opinions on the church that lack the word “Jesus”.

Notwithstanding PR problems, If there is more conflict in the Vatican under Benedict XVI, it is likely because he is more open to different ideas and is not afraid to engage them, while holding firm to the truths of the faith.

Posted by Quinlyn Lene' on Thursday, Apr, 7, 2011 11:22 AM (EST):

This paper just a few days ago was owned and operated by the LC/RC and now by EWTN. Mother’s network was placed in the hands of laity to protect it from members of the magisterium who are NOT in league with magisterial teaching. This needs to be heard and acted on. Sadono and others as yet still in the heart of the curia and yet at odds with the pope are very disturbing. The official word inside the Legion and Regnum Christi is that the accusations against the founder were indeed rumors instigated by the devil and they (The LC/RC are the work of God). The beatification of JPII and the pictures of JPII with Marcial and what JPII said about Marcial being, “an efficacious guide to youth”, are once again being exploited. Please get the DNA of Marcial’s children published and stop this great apostasy. Please and thank you.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.